Subject RE: [Firebird-general] Confused,I feel
Author Steve Summers
Si Carter Wrote
>> I think to the degree that there's any truth to the "we don't
>> really compete" line, it's that MySQL is more targeted at the "web
>> application back end" market, while Firebird is more targeted
>> (and appropriate for) more traditional client/server apps,

>I would challenge this thinking, ive used FB on the web for about 4 years, first with isapi and in the last 2 years with >.net.
Of course ive also use FB and Interbase back to V4 with traditional type apps and it rocks here as well.

You know, what I wrote didn't quite come out right. It sounds like I said Firebird is more appropriate for client/server apps
than for web apps. What I was trying to say is that Firebird is more appropriate than MySQL for client/server apps.

I do think that both interpretations are true, to an extent. You don't see lots of web hosting companies providing Firebird on
the back end, like you do with MySQL. A big reason for that is the limitation of the single security/user database for the
whole server. Now that there's a freeware version of VMWare for servers, allowing each customer sharing a server to have their
own Firebird instance easily, that might change.

But I think it's MORE true that FB is better for Client/Server apps- the kinds that SMB's like DRB Systems sell, because A) we
don't have to pay MySQL for licenses even though we're deploying the apps outside our own companies and B) because FB has had
stored procedures and triggers for decades, not just months.